![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Herrglocke added "*Cackbrain, A (1320). "Donald Rumpkinson and the search for James Richtermann" (4th ed.), Muchos Gracias Publishing" as a reference. I am curious to find out whether this is a real reference. I have not yet found this book and don't see its relationship, can't find either of the names referenced in a Google or library search. If this is not a real reference (or perhaps even if it is a very obscure one since it is not truly referenced) it should be removed. Can anyone advise further? - -- Jimmyswimmy 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Requested title change to "Standard Reduction Potential" from "Reduction Potential" to link shortform the commonly used SRP to this page
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ventulus ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
These two articles should be left separate. Reduction potential on its own is much easier to apply to a biological system as I have discovered. I don't think I have to say much since someone has made all the necessary comments below. Rylkiwanuka 18:08 16 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working on a new version of this article at Standard electrode potential/Temp. Physchim62 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the two should be merged. There is little that one would want to say on either subject without a very large degree of overlap Ahw001 09:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better to mantain the articles separated because many people are in confusion with the different ways to relate to the same concept. 26 august 2006
I also think they should be separated, as ORP is used as a field parameter in water quality assessment and ground water analysis. For those uses, a general definition or suggestion of implication of Eh is more important than explaining how the standard was achieved. Also, field conditions never have the standard constants, like temperature, which might throw off users of the ORP recorded in fie 24.172.82.130 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)ld equipment like water quality meters, etc. 24.172.82.130 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest keeping separated. I've added information regarding practical measurements of ORP, which seems like good focus for a general article on ORP, that would then link to more specific discussion of standard electrode potential. Jjotter 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Actually reduction potential referes to the system. e.g. it can be applied to the biological systems as well. But when we say standard electrode potential, then it become difficult to apply the concept of redox potential through standard electrode potential to general systems.
Actually reduction potential referes to the system. e.g. it can be applied to the biological systems as well. But when we say standard electrode potential, then it become difficult to apply the concept of redox potential through standard electrode potential to general systems.so i think these two sections should be kept separate.
Can someone please explain to me why Li has a lower value than K (for example), but K is more electropositive? Thanks... - postglock 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm changing this odd statement: there is no way to measure the individual potentials of the electrodes in isolation. There are ways to measure electrostatic potentials, but they're not simple and not very accurate. -- Wjbeaty 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Provided half-cell potentials are not being used in isolation but combined to give overall cell potentials, there are no thermodynamic implications - the reference point is arbitrary 84.92.241.186 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be an 'E' with a superscript 'o' horizontally crossed through it?
Now, you just have a superscript letter 'o'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.120.20 ( talk) 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
First the text says ...
Since the electrode potentials are conventionally defined as reduction potentials, the sign of the potential for the metal electrode being oxidized must be reversed when calculating the overall cell potential. Note that the electrode potentials are independent of the number of electrons transferred -that is, they are set to one mole of electrons transfered- and so the two electrode potentials can be simply combined to give the overall cell potential even if different numbers of electrons are involved in the two electrode reactions
Then we have the following text ..
Since the table of standard electrode potentials is defined for a transfer of one mole of electrons, care must be made in determining an electrode potential using two other electrode potentials. Adjustments have to be made for the number of electrons being transfered.
For example:
(eq1) Fe3+ + 3e- --> Fe(s) is listed as -0.036V
(eq2) Fe2+ + 2E- --> Fe(s) is listed as -0.44V
to get a third equation:
(eq3) Fe3+ + e- --> Fe2+ (listed as +0.77V)
one would need to take eq1 and multiply the voltage by 3, reverse eq2 (changes the sign) and multiply the voltage by 2. Adding those two voltages together gives the standard potential for eq3.
Surely that is saying that the calculated electrode potential of the cell does depend on moles of electrons transferred - which contradicts the first bit I quoted.
Ideas anyone?
Clive long ( talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Clive long
It seems that some results have been reported by Bagotski on the influence of neutron beams on the electrode potential.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Link to article by Bagotski from Electrochimica Acta : Electrochimica Acta.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)